Re: RC: reply to NATRC Swanton by Guest

[Dbeverly4@aol.com]

In a message dated 7/27/01 11:12:56 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
guest@endurance.net writes:


> See, this is my biggest problem with NATRC. I view CTR as a way to compare
> the fitness levels of the entrants. IMO, the fittest (BC) horse should
> win. That's at the heart of why I don't like or do NATRC. (And why CTR
> organizations will likely never be under one umbrella.) Too slow to stress
> the horse and the rules don't truly determine who's got the horse in the
> best condition at the end.


Deanna, where have you been getting your information about NATRC?  I'm 
curious as to why you assume that NATRC is too slow to stress the horse and 
the rules don't truly determine who's got the horse in the best condition -- 
that is exactly what they are intended to do and what they, in fact, do.  
NATRC also stresses a horse's trail ability and capabilities; however, that 
is only a very small (15%) portion of the total score.  The Open Division (50 
miles) definitely puts your horse to work -- mentally and physically.  In my 
experience, NATRC is an excellent preparation and compliment to endurance 
riding.  The two go really well together and I thorughly enjoy both during 
the same ride season.  I use the NATRC rides to condition my horse for the 
Tevis each year.  

Hope this doesn't come across argumentative -- not my intent.  I just react 
when people make blanket statements about NATRC when they don't really 
understand what its all about.

Sylvia & Harca -- 2,000 each NATRC and AERC miles -- 6 Tevis buckles